Film, Media & TV0 min ago
"Gay Cure" Advert Banned
62 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-17693947
what's left me utterly incomprehending is that tfl waited until the complaints started before pulling the ad. Did they really not think that offence might be taken?
what's left me utterly incomprehending is that tfl waited until the complaints started before pulling the ad. Did they really not think that offence might be taken?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
craft - your point about Gay Pride marches is an interesting one.
I would enitely agree that they are rooted in a time when being a homosexual was something to keep hidden in society, and the marches were a chance to stand tall and proud as a large group who could not be intimidated.
I do think that some people simply like 'gangs' - they feel secure in belonging.
This is a trait that most adolescents pass through - their personality is unformed, so they externalise their appearence in a way that simultaniously identifies and bonds them with like-minded people, while alienating them from the majority,often by engendering feelings of hostility and disgust.
Some people carry this personality trait through into adulthood, and it manifests itself in many ways, the most common and obvious being the football fan.
But some people like to express their sense of 'belonging' to a sub-ggroup because it makes them feel wanted, almost a substitute family feeling. i am curently reading a book about biker gangs, and that is the entire ethos of their organisations, the 'brotherhood' by which they literally live and die.
That I think explains Gay Pride marches today - less the need to proclaim a sexuality which is despised and feared, and more a need to feel a sense of belonging and community - plus, they do look like a really good day out!
I would enitely agree that they are rooted in a time when being a homosexual was something to keep hidden in society, and the marches were a chance to stand tall and proud as a large group who could not be intimidated.
I do think that some people simply like 'gangs' - they feel secure in belonging.
This is a trait that most adolescents pass through - their personality is unformed, so they externalise their appearence in a way that simultaniously identifies and bonds them with like-minded people, while alienating them from the majority,often by engendering feelings of hostility and disgust.
Some people carry this personality trait through into adulthood, and it manifests itself in many ways, the most common and obvious being the football fan.
But some people like to express their sense of 'belonging' to a sub-ggroup because it makes them feel wanted, almost a substitute family feeling. i am curently reading a book about biker gangs, and that is the entire ethos of their organisations, the 'brotherhood' by which they literally live and die.
That I think explains Gay Pride marches today - less the need to proclaim a sexuality which is despised and feared, and more a need to feel a sense of belonging and community - plus, they do look like a really good day out!
craft1948
Gay Pride marches will continue as long as there are religious fundamentalists who preach that homosexuality is evil.
You can't have a world where there isn't an open an opposing view to those dictated by Catholic, Muslim and CofE leaders. You need an expression against those beliefs, and Gay Pride (or to be more accurate, simply 'Pride') stands for that.
Religious groups have their platform from which to denounce homosexuality and gays/lesbian. It makes sense that the gay community have a platform to celebrate who they are.
And remember - Pride has only been around for 20 years or so...whereas hatred for the platform for hatred of homosexuals is centuries old!
Gay Pride marches will continue as long as there are religious fundamentalists who preach that homosexuality is evil.
You can't have a world where there isn't an open an opposing view to those dictated by Catholic, Muslim and CofE leaders. You need an expression against those beliefs, and Gay Pride (or to be more accurate, simply 'Pride') stands for that.
Religious groups have their platform from which to denounce homosexuality and gays/lesbian. It makes sense that the gay community have a platform to celebrate who they are.
And remember - Pride has only been around for 20 years or so...whereas hatred for the platform for hatred of homosexuals is centuries old!
On the gay train once again oh, it is all so boring.
There is never going to be a time when everyone on the planet feels comfortable about homosexuality.
It is against certain religious beliefs that go back thousands of years and they are not going to alter their view, no matter how much certain people demand they do.
Would homosexuals be prepared to remain closeted because certain groups demand they did, the answer is no and quite rightly so, therefore homosexuals should not demand that some others beliefs should change.
Regarding the bus adverts, well what can some expect when they blatantly proclaim "SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!" that is an obvious demand, so is it any wonder that the opposition retaliate by proclaiming "NOT GAY! EX GAY Post-Gay, AND PROUD, GET OVER IT!"
Nowhere can I see it refers to promoting the idea of therapy to change sexual orientation, or a cure for homosexuality, so therefore if one side can display their message on the side of a bus, it is only fair that the opposing side displays theirs.
There is never going to be a time when everyone on the planet feels comfortable about homosexuality.
It is against certain religious beliefs that go back thousands of years and they are not going to alter their view, no matter how much certain people demand they do.
Would homosexuals be prepared to remain closeted because certain groups demand they did, the answer is no and quite rightly so, therefore homosexuals should not demand that some others beliefs should change.
Regarding the bus adverts, well what can some expect when they blatantly proclaim "SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!" that is an obvious demand, so is it any wonder that the opposition retaliate by proclaiming "NOT GAY! EX GAY Post-Gay, AND PROUD, GET OVER IT!"
Nowhere can I see it refers to promoting the idea of therapy to change sexual orientation, or a cure for homosexuality, so therefore if one side can display their message on the side of a bus, it is only fair that the opposing side displays theirs.
AOG
The advert states "NOT GAY! EX GAY Post-Gay, AND PROUD, GET OVER IT!"
It's there in the statement. Ex-gay and post-gay...what does that mean?
The idea that you can use therapy to change someone's sexuality is what this group is promoting (check their website).
If you can turn a gay man straight through therapy, then surely you can turn a straight man gay.
Except, of course - you can't.
The advert states "NOT GAY! EX GAY Post-Gay, AND PROUD, GET OVER IT!"
It's there in the statement. Ex-gay and post-gay...what does that mean?
The idea that you can use therapy to change someone's sexuality is what this group is promoting (check their website).
If you can turn a gay man straight through therapy, then surely you can turn a straight man gay.
Except, of course - you can't.
"It is against certain religious beliefs that go back thousands of years and they are not going to alter their view, no matter how much certain people demand they do."
They can believe what they want. They can believe that the Earth was created in seven days, and that Jesus turned water into wine and that a man should be stoned if he sleeps with a woman when she's having her period (yup, that's in the Bible too) and that a bloke managed to get every living creature into a big boat...they can believe all that - but once they use their positions to decry homosexuals as evil, or as the Pope recently said, "A bigger threat to mankind than the destruction of the rain forests", then gays will inevitably stand up and shout back.
Remember - Christians and Muslims (let's leave out Hindus and Jews as they seem altogether more tolerant) have been preaching hatred for centuries, as you have said - this is a reaction to that.
As Billy Joel once said, "We didn't start the fire..."
They can believe what they want. They can believe that the Earth was created in seven days, and that Jesus turned water into wine and that a man should be stoned if he sleeps with a woman when she's having her period (yup, that's in the Bible too) and that a bloke managed to get every living creature into a big boat...they can believe all that - but once they use their positions to decry homosexuals as evil, or as the Pope recently said, "A bigger threat to mankind than the destruction of the rain forests", then gays will inevitably stand up and shout back.
Remember - Christians and Muslims (let's leave out Hindus and Jews as they seem altogether more tolerant) have been preaching hatred for centuries, as you have said - this is a reaction to that.
As Billy Joel once said, "We didn't start the fire..."
//It is against certain religious beliefs that go back thousands of years and they are not going to alter their view, no matter how much certain people demand they do.//
True, but that doesn't make them homophobic. I know lot's of devout Christians who wouldn't judge someone on their sexuality. That's for their God to judge.
True, but that doesn't make them homophobic. I know lot's of devout Christians who wouldn't judge someone on their sexuality. That's for their God to judge.
sp1814
/// It's there in the statement. Ex-gay and post-gay...what does that mean? ///
/// If you can turn a gay man straight through therapy, then surely you can turn a straight man gay. ///
First and foremost the bus sign says nothing about therapy, regardless of what their web site promotes, so as it stands the sign is not offensive, it is only what some wish to read into it.
Secondly, there have been many men and women who have set out as true heterosexuals, so much so that they have gone on to have a loving relationships with members of their opposite sex, and then gone on to get married and to have children, then later in life have suddenly found an attraction to members of the same sex.
If it can work one way, why can't someone who has experimented in homosexuality, then go back to heterosexuality? I am not saying that this happens all the time but it has been known to.
/// It's there in the statement. Ex-gay and post-gay...what does that mean? ///
/// If you can turn a gay man straight through therapy, then surely you can turn a straight man gay. ///
First and foremost the bus sign says nothing about therapy, regardless of what their web site promotes, so as it stands the sign is not offensive, it is only what some wish to read into it.
Secondly, there have been many men and women who have set out as true heterosexuals, so much so that they have gone on to have a loving relationships with members of their opposite sex, and then gone on to get married and to have children, then later in life have suddenly found an attraction to members of the same sex.
If it can work one way, why can't someone who has experimented in homosexuality, then go back to heterosexuality? I am not saying that this happens all the time but it has been known to.
//Secondly, there have been many men and women who have set out as true heterosexuals, so much so that they have gone on to have a loving relationships with members of their opposite sex, and then gone on to get married and to have children, then later in life have suddenly found an attraction to members of the same sex. //
That's called being in the closet AOG. They don't 'suddenly' find attraction to someone of the same sex. They've spent their lives trying to suppress and deny what they really are.
That's called being in the closet AOG. They don't 'suddenly' find attraction to someone of the same sex. They've spent their lives trying to suppress and deny what they really are.
craft1948:
Just thought I'd respond to your well-made point about Pride marches being obsolete/unnecessary.
You're right, they don't generally serve their original function anymore - naturally, they take on a role in attacking the minority who are still intolerant, and in raising awareness about the persecution of gay people elsewhere in the world. But I would argue that in this day and age, that is not their only role.
The role they play now is largely cultural. So, as we all know, for centuries in this country gay people or any non-heterosexuals were persecuted, criminalised and marginalised. The gay rights movement and its supporters have met with huge success in overturning that over the past 40-50 years. What Pride marches etc. now do is simply celebrate that heritage and the fact that it has been achieved. It's very important to the gay community, because the fact is it's a history that every member of it has in common.
Furthermore, Pride events are about the most inclusive imaginable - in all the Pride rallies I've attended, there's always been huge numbers of heterosexuals and incredible diversity of backgrounds present. Why? Because all that they have in common is an appreciation of that historic achievement which our society has made in the past few decades.
So, you're right. Functionally, the battles that the gay rights movement was initially fighting have largely been lost and won. The reason it doesn't disappear into the ether is because nowadays Pride events can raise awareness, but also celebrate the shared history that the LGBT community and its supporters have together. They're just about celebrating that achievement, which the overwhelming majority of people (yourself included) see as a good thing, and just trying to use that as means to celebrate togetherness and diversity. That's what it is nowadays.
Just thought I'd respond to your well-made point about Pride marches being obsolete/unnecessary.
You're right, they don't generally serve their original function anymore - naturally, they take on a role in attacking the minority who are still intolerant, and in raising awareness about the persecution of gay people elsewhere in the world. But I would argue that in this day and age, that is not their only role.
The role they play now is largely cultural. So, as we all know, for centuries in this country gay people or any non-heterosexuals were persecuted, criminalised and marginalised. The gay rights movement and its supporters have met with huge success in overturning that over the past 40-50 years. What Pride marches etc. now do is simply celebrate that heritage and the fact that it has been achieved. It's very important to the gay community, because the fact is it's a history that every member of it has in common.
Furthermore, Pride events are about the most inclusive imaginable - in all the Pride rallies I've attended, there's always been huge numbers of heterosexuals and incredible diversity of backgrounds present. Why? Because all that they have in common is an appreciation of that historic achievement which our society has made in the past few decades.
So, you're right. Functionally, the battles that the gay rights movement was initially fighting have largely been lost and won. The reason it doesn't disappear into the ether is because nowadays Pride events can raise awareness, but also celebrate the shared history that the LGBT community and its supporters have together. They're just about celebrating that achievement, which the overwhelming majority of people (yourself included) see as a good thing, and just trying to use that as means to celebrate togetherness and diversity. That's what it is nowadays.
"If it can work one way, why can't someone who has experimented in homosexuality, then go back to heterosexuality? I am not saying that this happens all the time but it has been known to."
This is true. But all that means is that it can happen in the case of those particular people. Just because someone changes from one to the other, it does not mean everyone can (or should) - it just means that particular person can. Which is about in-line with what we already know about the fluidity of human sexuality: it varies. Plenty of research exists to support this.
As I said earlier, that's why the idea that conversion therapy is something scientific that can be applied consistently is simply an invalid opinion.
The organisation is an advocacy group for conversion therapy. The advert is quite obviously meant to celebrate 'ex-gays'/'post-gays'. Every advert has a message, AOG, that's the whole point of them - and the message behind this one is abundantly clear. It is an endorsement of conversion therapy. I don't think your argument that the poster is ambiguous is at all well-founded.
This is true. But all that means is that it can happen in the case of those particular people. Just because someone changes from one to the other, it does not mean everyone can (or should) - it just means that particular person can. Which is about in-line with what we already know about the fluidity of human sexuality: it varies. Plenty of research exists to support this.
As I said earlier, that's why the idea that conversion therapy is something scientific that can be applied consistently is simply an invalid opinion.
The organisation is an advocacy group for conversion therapy. The advert is quite obviously meant to celebrate 'ex-gays'/'post-gays'. Every advert has a message, AOG, that's the whole point of them - and the message behind this one is abundantly clear. It is an endorsement of conversion therapy. I don't think your argument that the poster is ambiguous is at all well-founded.
"It is against certain religious beliefs that go back thousands of years and they are not going to alter their view, no matter how much certain people demand they do. "
This is also untrue. Unitarians and other faith groups quite happily promote interpretations of scripture that are tolerant of homosexuality.
Having a religious conviction does not protect you from rational argument. It isn't enough that, say, person 1 puts forward a tolerant opinion of homosexuality and person 2 puts forward an intolerant one and that's it. These are matters which have significant impact on peoples' lives - it is incumbent on society to take a stance. To do so, rational discussion is the best way we have yet found for deciding which case is the better one. On rational criteria, the tolerant argument has overwhelmingly won. If you have an intolerant opinion on homosexuality, then you ought to justify it - and rightly so. If an opinion cannot be justified, there is no reason for anyone to give it any credence. That is how progress happens, that is how thought develops and that is how society grows. Simply stating opinions and drawing a line in the sand is not good enough.
And no, I don't see how 'thousands of years' somehow gives an opinion greater credibility. It must still justify itself on some criteria or another. The belief that the world is only 6000 years old is an opinion that goes back thousands of years - but that is simply insufficient justification. The same principle applies elsewhere.
This is also untrue. Unitarians and other faith groups quite happily promote interpretations of scripture that are tolerant of homosexuality.
Having a religious conviction does not protect you from rational argument. It isn't enough that, say, person 1 puts forward a tolerant opinion of homosexuality and person 2 puts forward an intolerant one and that's it. These are matters which have significant impact on peoples' lives - it is incumbent on society to take a stance. To do so, rational discussion is the best way we have yet found for deciding which case is the better one. On rational criteria, the tolerant argument has overwhelmingly won. If you have an intolerant opinion on homosexuality, then you ought to justify it - and rightly so. If an opinion cannot be justified, there is no reason for anyone to give it any credence. That is how progress happens, that is how thought develops and that is how society grows. Simply stating opinions and drawing a line in the sand is not good enough.
And no, I don't see how 'thousands of years' somehow gives an opinion greater credibility. It must still justify itself on some criteria or another. The belief that the world is only 6000 years old is an opinion that goes back thousands of years - but that is simply insufficient justification. The same principle applies elsewhere.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Arts & Literature2 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.